Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-02 15:38:35
On Dec 2, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Actually we need a new std::safe_hash<> I think, one explicitly
> prohibited from being a trivial hash. I'd personally like to see that
> become the default hash for unordered_map et al, and let the
> programmer choose std::hash where safe.
Id like to see us enable the programmer to *easily* select hash algorithms we havent even heard of yet. E.g. perhaps they are being invented tomorrow.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk